There are many questionable arguments in this piece, which is a shame since the general argument--that Hillary is better positioned for the General Election, based on primary results--deserves a proper airing in the press.

However, Mr. Wilentz fails to make a convincing argument based on his augmentation and, in some cases, outright distortion of the facts.

It is true, and worth noting, that Senator Clinton would be ahead in delegates were the Democratic Party to have initiated a winner-take-all system. To then assume that the election results, under that system, would be the same is absurd. As Roger Simon over at Politico puts it, the Obama campaign "...says it had a calm and deliberate strategy that it has executed well: Win Iowa and then aggregate delegates."

Obviously, in a winner-take-all primary system, the Obama team would not have run a campaign to 'aggregate delegates' and there is no reasonable way to speculate on how a different strategy--much less a whole different system--would have effected primary outcomes.

Second, Mr. Wilentz raises the specters of Michigan and Florida again, as if the Clintons daily reminders on the subject were not enough. Rather than clarify Obama's position on revotes or point out Mr. Wilentz neglect of Florida and Michigan's violation of the DNC rules as other readers have already done, I'll take a different tack...

I'm an Oregonian--our primary is still a month off. Our state, unlike Michigan, Florida and many of the 'Woozy Tuesday' states, chose to keep its original primary date. We've followed DNC rules and now, because of a close election, will have our say in who should be President--and as it should be.

To allow a revote in Michigan and Florida--or to seat any portion of their delegation at the National Convention--undermines the relevancy of Oregon's results. Not only that, it undermines the will of the voters in any 'small state' that obeyed the rules and waited their turn. We've played by the rules and deserve to have our day in the sun.

Letting MI and FL revote would refocus the candiates' attention and effort away from the smaller states who've yet to vote. Sitting any portion of the MI and FL delegations at the convention would effectively decrease the power of our delegates' votes by increasing the number of delegates needed to win.

Obviously, the DNC will have to make concessions to MI and FL to keep voters in both states happy. But this comes at a cost to the rest of us--a very real penalty that cheats the other states who've followed the rules.

If Mr. Wilentz's article was labeled as an opinion piece I would still object to his reasoning but would find his argument interesting. As it stands, this article is not news and is not based on fact and, therefore, doesn't deserve either its categorization or prominent placement as the top story of the day.

"If it wasn't for Glenn Greenwald, I'd cancel my membership right this minute."

It's not like Gleen, or any other Salon content, is blocked as Premium Only.

They tried that for a while, and now everything's available without paying. You have to put up with ads, that's all.

But after seeing this article, I have to conclude that Salon's major revenue stream is either directly from the Clinton campaign, or some surrogate organization. Salon's been losing money by the truckload since its inception, and somebody's paying to keep the thing running.

Ahmadinijad in a pantsuit.

Old Hill done chose her staff. She done run her own campaign. She's the experienced executive, right? 35 years, and never a cookie baked. Whatta woman. Not enough woman for Bill, but that's not her fault. Probably. The primary system is Rube Goldberg city, folks. It takes planning, vision, attention to details, encyclopedic knowledge of the widely varying rules in each jurisdiction. Obama has thrashed her in every aspect of this. If she was all that and a side of garlic fries, she's have buried the field, Obama and all, months ago. Nope. She drove the bus right into the side of a building, and then blamed the darkie for puttin' that building in front of her. Piss off, Billary. Take it like a woman. OR a man. Whatever lifts yer kilt.

If I had flippers I could be swimming.

1. Hillary WOULD be winning if the rules were the ones she WOULD win with.

2. Obama supporters WOULD be whining if Obama was losing with the rules Obama WOULD be losing with, if Obama was losing.

3. Obama supporters are brainwashed and sexist and WOULD be crying about sexism if Obama was a woman.

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Mr. Wilentz ignores a few obvious things in making his case for why Hillary should be winning:

1. A winner-take-all primary system that would award more delegates to a candidate with fewer popular votes is not more reasonable or fair but less. A similar system at the national level is precisely what gave us George Bush in 2000 even though fewer people voted for him.

2. A large number of democrats didn't vote in either Michigan or Florida because everyone including Hillary had pointed out it wouldn't count and would mean nothing. You can't just turn around now and say let's seat those delegates based on the results of those votes.

3. Obama and 3 other Democrats took their names off the ballot in Michigan because they thought that was the agreement and given that the primary wasn't going to count it shouldn't matter. The so-called "stealth campaign" by Obama supporters to encourage people to vote "uncommitted" was undertaken only after it became clear that Hillary was not going to remove her name from the ballot which effectively meant she would be running unopposed.

4. In Florida where no one campaigned, Hillary's so-called victory was largely a matter of name recognition. If Obama had been allowed to campaign and introduce himself to voters the outcome would likely have been different.

Mr. Wilentz's cherry-picking and spinning of information is no less unfair and misleading than the Bush propaganda campaign which gave us the current occupation of Iraq.